Relational Analysis of Profile of Beneficiaries of Farm Ponds and Its Socio Economic Impact

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-2, Issue-4, July-Aug- 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/2.4.29 ISSN: 2456-1878
Relational Analysis of Profile of Beneficiaries of

Farm Ponds and its Socio Economic Impact
DV Supe, RP Kadam, GS Pawar
Department of Extension Education, College of Agriculture, VNMKV, Parbhani, Maharashtra, India
Abstract The present investigation was conducted in system by giving social, economical and technological
Parbhani district of Marathwada region in Maharashtra backup to the people who depend upon it. Moreover, the
State. The main objective of the study was relationship economy is mainly dependent on stability of crop
between profile of beneficiaries of farm ponds and its production in rainfed areas. Construction of farm ponds is
impact. The data were collected through personal interview one of the such beneficial programme for harvesting excess
with the help of interview schedule by contacting 80 rain water during rainy season; which is implemented by the
beneficiaries. The result revealed that majority (75.00%) of State Agricultural Development under National Agricultural
the beneficiaries having middle farming experience, Development Programme, Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana
followed by 26.25 per cent of the beneficiaries were (Aug 2007 In 11th five year plan) etc. The excess rain water
educated up to secondary school level, while 50.00 per cent harvested in farm ponds play a vital role in stabilizing crop
of the beneficiaries were having semi-medium land holding production through recycling during dry spell in kharif
.whereas 75.00 per cent of the beneficiaries having medium season and for protective irrigation in rabi season. The
area under irrigation, While 80.00 per cent of the major works of Rain Water Harvesting Structure adopted in
beneficiaries having medium family size. It was also found the watershed are check dams, farm ponds, nala bunds,
that 87.50 per cent of the beneficiaries having medium contour bunds, vegetative covers etc. which play major role
social participation, whereas 52.50 per cent of the in managing and conserving the soil and water resources.
beneficiaries having medium level of extension contact, and However, farm pond is perceived as best rain water
52.50 per cent of the beneficiaries having medium level of harvesting structure by large majority of farmers. The
economic motivation, followed by 63.75 per cent of the present study was undertaken with the following specific
beneficiaries having medium risk preferences. Also the objective
result showed that farming experience, education, land 1. To study the profile of farm pond beneficiaries
holding, area under irrigation, family size social 2. To study the relationship between profile of beneficiaries
participation, extension contact, economic motivation and of farm ponds and its Socio-economic impact
risk preferences were found to be positively and
significantly related with impact in technological change II. METHODOLOGY
(i.e) crop production, cropping pattern and soil The research study was selected by lottery method in
conservation structure of farm pond. Also the result showed Parbhani district of Marathwada region in Maharashtra
that relationship of profile of beneficiaries with economic State. The study was conducted in Parbhani district from
change in employment generation only economic motivation selected district four talukas was selected and fro selected 4
was positive and non-significant, followed by relationship talukas 5 villages from each talukas was selected on the
of profile of beneficiaries with social change in material basis of maximum number of farm ponds. From each
possession and implement possession i.e. economic selected village 4 beneficiary farmers was selected
motivation was non-significant also social participation randomly those having 3 year before farm pond after
was non-significant in change in education family member. receiving its beneficiaries list from the authority to make 80
Keywords Relationship of Beneficiaries, Farm Ponds, samples of beneficiaries in total. All the respondents were
Economic Impact . personally interviewed at their home and farms and data
was collected. The collected data was analyzed with the
I. INTRODUCTION help of suitable statistical methods i.e. frequency,
The challenges before Indian agriculture is to transform percentage, mean, standard deviation, coefficient of
rainfed farming into more sustainable and productive correlation and Z-test.
www.ijeab.com Page | 1683

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1. Profile of farm pond beneficiaries
Table 1 (n=80)
Sr. No. Category No. %
1 Farming experience
1. Low 10 12.50
1. Medium 60 75.00
2. High 10 12.50
2 Education
1. Illiterate 14 17.50
2. Primary school level 19 23.75
3. Secondary school level 21 26.25
4. Higher school level 19 23.75
5. College level 07 08.75
3 Land holding
1. Marginal farmer 1 1.25
2. Small farmers 23 28.75
3. Semi-medium farmers 40 50.00
4. Medium farmers 16 20.00
5. Big farmers 00 00
4 Area under irrigation
1. Low 10 12.50
2. Medium 60 75.00
3. High 10 12.50
5 Family size
1. Low 4 5
2. Medium 64 80
3. High 12 15
6 Social participation
1. Low 70 87.50
2. Medium 09 11.25
3. High 01 01.25
7 Extension contact
1. Low 22 27.50
2. Medium 42 52.50
3. High 16 20.00
8 Economic motivation
1. Low 21 26.25
2. Medium 42 52.50
3. High 17 21.25
9 Risk preferences
1. Low 09 11.25
2. Medium 51 63.75
3. High 20 25.00

Table.2: Distribution of relationship of profile of beneficiaries with Technological change i.e. (crop production, change in
cropping pattern, and soil conservation structure).
Cropping
Sr. Crop Production Soil conservation
Profile pattern
No r value r value
r value
1. Farming experience 0.450** 0.504** 0.489**
2. Education 0.687** 0.662** 0.701**
3. Land holding 0.778** 0.821** 0.808**
4. Area under irrigation 0.747** 0.705** 0.741**
5. Family size 0.765** 0.841** 0.828**
6 Social participation 0.395** 0.480** 0.330**
7. Extension contact 0.753** 0.698** 0.732**
8. Economic motivation 0.281* 0.191* 0.197 *
9. Risk preferences 0.672** 0.554** 0.621**
**Significant at 0.01 level of probability.
1.1 Profile of farm pond beneficiaries farm pond most of the crop yield is increased due to the
It was found from Table 1 that majority (74.00 %) of the increased area under irrigation. Due to crop yield also
beneficiaries had medium farming experience and 12.50 per increase annual income of farmers and they provide the
cent of the respondents had low and high farming more education to his children also increase social contact
experience each, followed by (26.25%) beneficiaries were with extension workers to get more information about
educated up to secondary school level and 23.75 per cent of agriculture. Above findings are in line with, Ahire (2000),
the respondents were educated up to primary school level Erappa (2000), Nipanikar (2006) and Kulkarni (2009).
and higher school level both, followed by (50.00%) of the It was noticed from Table 2 that farming experience,
beneficiaries were having semi medium land holding and education, land holding, area under irrigation, family size,
28.75 per cent of the respondents were small farmers, social participation, extension contact, risk preferences was
followed by (75.00%) majority of the beneficiaries had positively and highly significantly related with impact on
medium area under irrigation and 12.50 per cent having cropping pattern at 0.01 level of probability and economic
low area under irrigation, followed by (80.00%) of the motivation was also positively and significantly related with
beneficiaries had medium family size, and 15.00 per cent impact on cropping pattern at 0.05 level of probability.
of the respondents had high family size, followed by Before construction of farm pond respondents followed
(87.50%) of the beneficiaries had low social participation traditional cropping pattern i.e. they cultivated only one or
and 11.25 per cent of respondents had medium social two crops. After construction of farm pond cropping pattern
participation, followed by (52.50%) of the farmers medium changed to growing more than one crop due to increased
extension contact and 27.50 per cent farmers had low area under irrigation, crop yield also increase due to crop
extension contact, followed by (52.50%) had medium yield annual income get increased by change in crop
economic motivation and 26.25 per cent had low, followed pattern.Above findings are in line with Ahire (2000),
by (63.75 %) were having medium risk preferences and Erappa (2000), Nipanikar (2006) and Kulkarni (2009).
25.00 per cent having high risk preferences. It was noticed from Table 2 that farming experience,
education, land holding, area under irrigation, family size,
2.1 Relationship of profile of beneficiaries with social participation, extension contact, risk preferences was
Technological change positively and highly significantly related with impact on
It was noticed from Table 2 that farming experience, soil conservation structure at 0.01 level of probability and
education, land holding, area under irrigation, family size, economic motivation was also positively and significantly
social participation, extension contact, risk preferences was related with impact on soil conservation structure. Soil
positively and highly significantly related with impact on conservation increased with increasing area under irrigation
crop production at 0.01 level of probability and economic also increase in crop yield and cropping pattern. More land
motivation was also positively and significantly related with is used after construction of farm pond for crop cultivation
impact on crop production at 0.05 level of probability. due to this soil conservation practices also increased. Above
Above relation indicated that after construction and using of

findings are in line with Ahire (2000), Erappa (2000), contact, economic motivation and risk preferences this
Nipanikar (2006), Kulkarni (2009) and Deshmukh (2016). variables are positively and significantly associated with
Farming experience, education, land holding, area under Technological change.
irrigation, family size, social participation, extension
Table.3: Distribution of relationship of profile of beneficiaries with Economic change i.e. (employment generation).
Sr. No Profile Beneficiaries r value
1. Farming experience 0.428**
2. Education 0.707**
3. Land holding 0.797**
4. Area under irrigation 0.729**
5. Family size 0.807**
6. Social participation 0.344**
7. Extension contact 0.716**
8. Economic motivation 0.173 NS
9. Risk preferences 0.555**
2.2 Relationship of profile of beneficiaries with labour charges of labour. Before construction of farm pond
Economical change respondents cultivated crop only in kharif season but after
It was noticed from Table 3 that farming experience, construction of farm pond they taken crop in rabi and
education, land holding, area under irrigation, family size, summer season. Hence intensive crop cultivation increased
social participation, extension contact, risk preferences was the more number of labourer and additional employment is
positively and highly significantly related with impact on generated in the field of agriculture.Above findings are in
employment generation at 0.01 level of probability and line with Ahire (2000), Nakhate (2006), Ponnusamy and
economic motivation was also positively and non- Gupta (2006), Kulkarni (2009) and Deshmukh (2016).
significantly related with impact on employment generation Farming experience, education, land holding, area under
at 0.05 level of probability. Due to change in cropping irrigation, family size, social participation, extension
pattern work also increased for labour and also required contact and risk preferences this variables are positively and
more labour to done work in farm. Hence also increase the significantly associated with Economic change.
Table.4: Dis tr ib u t io n of Relationship of profile of beneficiaries with Social change i.e. (material possession, change in to
education of family member and implement possession).
Material Change in to education Implement
Sr. No Profile possession of family member possession
r value r value r value
1. Farming experience 0.417** 0.371** 0.375**
2. Education 0.653** 0.444** 0.621**
3. Land holding 0.773** 0.354** 0.753**
4. Area under irrigation 0.695** 0.545** 0.665**
5. Family size 0.776** 0.375** 0.715**
NS
6. Social participation 0.439** 0.155 0.378**
7. Extension contact 0.694** 0.364** 0.728**
NS
8. Economic motivation 0.183 0..474** 0.160 NS
9. Risk preferences 0.560** 0.637** 0.558**
2.3 Relationship of profile of beneficiaries with Social It was noticed from Table 4 that farming experience,
change education, land holding, area under irrigation, family size,
social participation, extension contact, risk preferences was

positively and highly significantly related with impact on While 80.00 per cent of the beneficiaries having medium
material possession at 0.01 level of probability and family size. It was also found that 87.50 per cent of the
economic motivation was also positively and non- beneficiaries having medium social participation, whereas
significantly related with impact on material possession at 52.50 per cent of the beneficiaries having medium level of
0.05 level of probability. The findings are supported by extension contact, and 52.50 per cent of the beneficiaries
Ahire (2000), Shivanappan (2005), Nakhate (2006), Thakur having medium level of economic motivation, followed by
(2014) and Deshmukh (2016). 63.75 per cent of the beneficiaries having medium risk
It was noticed from Table 4 that farming experience, preferences. Farming experience, education, land holding,
education, land holding, area under irrigation, family size, area under irrigation, family size, social participation,
extension contact, economic motivation risk preferences was extension contact, and risk preferences were found to be
positively and highly significantly related with impact on positive and highly significant related with technological
change in education of family member at 0.01 level of change and economic change. While only economic
probability and social participation, was also positively and motivation was positive and significantly related with
non-significantly related with impact on change in education technological change and positive and non-significantly
of family member at 0.05 level of probability. Due to this related with economic change. Also in social change
more yield are obtain from field and sold in the market. Farming experience, education, land holding, area under
Income was available to educate the children with relation to irrigation, family size, social participation, extension
construction of farm pond. Education is inversely contact, and risk preferences were found to be positive and
propotional to the farm pond for improvement. The findings highly significant related with material possession, whereas,
are supported by, Ahire (2000), Bhange (2005), Jugale economic motivation was positively and non-significantly
(2006), Nakhate (2006) Chauhan et al. (2009) and Deshmukh related with material possession and implement possession.
(2016). Also social participation was positive non-significantly
It was noticed from Table 4 that farming experience, related with change in education of family members. While
education, land holding, area under irrigation, family size, only economic motivation was significantly related with
social participation, extension contact, risk preferences was technological change.
positively and highly significantly related with impact on
implement possession at 0.01 level of probability and REFERENCES
economic motivation was also positively and non- [1] Ahire, R.D. 2000. A Study on the Consequences of
significantly related with impact on implement possession at Watershed Development Programme. Ph. D. Thesis,
0.05 level of probability. After construction of farm pond Marathwada Agriculture University, Parbhani.
increased irrigated area result in increased area under [2] Bhange, S.B., Lande S.B. and Sudhapahale S.S. 2005.
cultivation of crops which result increased farm income also National Watershed Development programme for
they require more implement for farm operation. Hence Rainfed Areas. Asian journal of extension Education,
construction of farm pond result in increase in implement 62-65.
possession of respondents. The findings are supported by [3] Jugale, V. B. 2006. Local Rain Harvesting Technique
Ahire (2000), Erappa (2000), Nipanikar (2006) and kulkarni in Sangali Districts. Bhagirath 3-10.
(2009). [4] Chouhan J., Singh A.K. Sharma R. Meena B.S. and
Farming experience, education, land holding, area under Singh R.P. 2009. Implication of Watershed in
irrigation, family size, extension contact and risk preferences Bringing Change in Cropping System and its
this variables are positively and significantly associated with productivity. Indian Research Journal Extension
Social change. Education 9 (1): 14-16.
[5] Deshmukh K.U. 2016 Impact of national Watershed
IV. CONCLUSIONS Development programme On Its Beneficiaries in
It is concluded that majority (75.00%) of the beneficiaries Marathwada Region. Ph.D. (Agri.) Thesis, Vasantrao
having middle farming experience, followed by 26.25 per Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani.
cent of the beneficiaries were educated up to secondary [6] Erappa, S. 2000. Rapid Impact Evaluation of National
school level, while 50.00 per cent of the beneficiaries were Watershed Development Programme for Rainfed
having semi-medium land holding, whereas 75.00 per cent Areas (NWDPRA) Riachur District. Karnataka
of the beneficiaries having medium area under irrigation, Agricultural Science Digest, 22(3): 73-75.

[7] Kulkarni, S.B. 2009. Impact of watershed
development programme of beneficiaries. M.Sc.
(Agri.) Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi
Vidyapeeth, Parbhani.
[8] Nakhate, S.S. 2006. Impact of SHG on Socio-
Economic Development of its Member. M.Sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, Marathwada Agriculture University, Parbhani.
[9] Nipanikar, S.S. 2006. Impact of Watershed
Development Programme on Beneficiaries in
Osmanabad District. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis,
Marathwada Agriculture University, Parbhani.
[10] Ponnusamy, K. and Gupta, J. 2006. factors influencing
sustainable livelihood parameters in different farming
systems. Asian J.Extn.Edu., 24: 5-9.
[11] Shivanappan R.K. 2005. Impact Assessment of
Watershed Development Work in Ground Water
Recharge. Kissan world, 32 (3) : 35-36.
[12] Thakur, D.R., M.S. Pathania and Thakur R.K.. 2014.
Impact Analysis of Integrated Watershed Project in
Swan Catchment, Una District of Himachal Pradesh.
Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension
Education & Rural Sociology College of Agriculture,
CSK HPKV, Palampur Research Report: 70.

Relational Analysis of Profile of Beneficiaries of Farm Ponds and Its Socio Economic Impact

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Relational Analysis of Profile of Beneficiaries of Farm Ponds and Its Socio Economic Impact

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-2, Issue-4, July-Aug- 2017

http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/2.4.29 ISSN: 2456-1878

Relational Analysis of Profile of Beneficiaries of

www.ijeab.com Page | 1683

www.ijeab.com Page | 1684

www.ijeab.com Page | 1685

www.ijeab.com Page | 1686

www.ijeab.com Page | 1687

www.ijeab.com Page | 1688

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen